All validity goes out the window when someone calls Russell Westbrook a better POINT GUARD than Rondo.

Seriously, by any measure of a point guard, Rondo is clearly superior. He even scores more efficiently.

They both play the 1, and he thinks that Westbrook is better than Rondo. Seems simple to me. We can disagree and believe that Rondo is better than Westbrook, but the reality remains -- they both play PG.

6th seems about right to me. And depending how next year goes, I could see him drop to 7th or 8th... Lots of young point guards coming up and D-Will is due for a bounce-back season.

Also, I have a hard time believing Rondo will ever average 11+ assists again... not now that it's been pretty much proven the stats were inflated in an offensive system that didn't really work.

Not only has it not been proven that Rondo's stats were inflated, it hasn't been shown that the offensive system didn't work. Nash and Magic and Stockton each had 5-7 11+ assist seasons when they were older than Rondo so it probably isn't as unlikely as you think. And, for the record, those guys were playing in offensive systems that led to high assist totals for them.

I think the point of the comment was that since the Celtics offense hasn't suffered with him out, and that there's more ball-sharing, that the expectation is that Doc will take the ball out of his hands more often once he returns.

It's possible on the other hand that the Jazz offense was much better with Stockton handling the ball 100% of the time, than it would have been with more sharing.

The comment about "offensive system" is more a thought about Rondo's future role specifically with this team than about whether it's possible for Rondo to again average 11+ assists in the same system, or whether having someone else average 11+ is a good/bad thing.

There's something I've been struggling with. For years I was under this belief that your point guard shouldn't be a scorer, but should just be someone who gets a lot of assists. This just made sense with conventional basketball logic. WHat's interesting, though... is that you have to go all the way back to Isiah Thomas and the Bad Boy Pistons to find a team that won a championship with a point guard who averaged over 8 assists... and in that instance, Isiah was also the team's best offensive weapon. Are we really sure that this conventional wisdom is still relevant? What evidence do we have that a team needs a ball-dominating poor-offensive passer? This isn't football where you need a great passer to lead an offense. This is the NBA. In the NBA, big men and dominant scorers win championships. And at the moment, it actually seems like this league has evolved into a system where elite point-guard sized scorers (your IRvings, your Curry's, your Westbrooks, your ROse's, etc) are able to flourish due to rule changes. So it's possible for teams to exploit this by having elite scoring point guards. Right now... isn't the point guard skill of "passing" secondary to putting the ball in the hoop? It makes sense why ROndo is only 6th on that list... you'd take a scoring point guard with mediocre passing over a passing point guard with weak offensive skills. I'm starting to think that the idea of a "pure" point guard isn't really relevant anymore... in the same way that the definition of the center position has changed in today's NBA.

Wait, first the knock on Rondo was that he can't lead your team to a championship because past evidence has shown that PG's don't win you titles. Now the logic is, we don't need Rondo because scoring PG's are more important in the NBA right now.

And suddenly having a PG who can score but has mediocre point guard skills is better than one who has elite skills but can't score (which BTW, isn't true for Rondo). That's absurd.

It's also highly unlikely that a guy like Curry, Irving, or even Rose will lead their team to a title any faster than Rondo will.

So then the obvious consensus is that we are perfectly fine with a defensive roleplayer like Bradley slotted in as permanent starting point guard... and then cash in Rondo to the highest bidder. Bradley will slow down these elite scoring point guard pests... and there's no reason we need an elite passer. Our chips are best spent on more important attributes like scoring, rebounding and interior defense.

People talk about the "formula" for winning titles, but don't seem to realize that it pretty much starts and ends with individual performers. Whatever OKC's formula is has a chance of working with Durant, no formula that they could come up with would work on that team without him. Same for the Spurs with Duncan, who had different types of teams around him when the Spurs won. Acquiring players based on the "formula" without that superstar talent is like building a car without an engine. Building a team with the supporting cast for a superstar when you don't have a way of getting one quickly is just plain silly.

See now we are on the same page. KG was a superstar talent and that's why we won a title in 2008. Pierce in his prime was an elite scorer, but a notch below superstardom. Rondo is at most an allstar. So the idea is to shop Rondo around for a high lotto pick or young assets that could possibly pan out to superstardom. At this point, we're best off just letting Bradley stick around as our default starting PG and try to get the most trade value out of the "allstar" Rondo.

Which "young assets" do you have in mind that are potential candidates for "superstardom"?

6th seems about right to me. And depending how next year goes, I could see him drop to 7th or 8th... Lots of young point guards coming up and D-Will is due for a bounce-back season.

Also, I have a hard time believing Rondo will ever average 11+ assists again... not now that it's been pretty much proven the stats were inflated in an offensive system that didn't really work.

Not only has it not been proven that Rondo's stats were inflated, it hasn't been shown that the offensive system didn't work. Nash and Magic and Stockton each had 5-7 11+ assist seasons when they were older than Rondo so it probably isn't as unlikely as you think. And, for the record, those guys were playing in offensive systems that led to high assist totals for them.

I think the point of the comment was that since the Celtics offense hasn't suffered with him out, and that there's more ball-sharing, that the expectation is that Doc will take the ball out of his hands more often once he returns.

It's possible on the other hand that the Jazz offense was much better with Stockton handling the ball 100% of the time, than it would have been with more sharing.

The comment about "offensive system" is more a thought about Rondo's future role specifically with this team than about whether it's possible for Rondo to again average 11+ assists in the same system, or whether having someone else average 11+ is a good/bad thing.

There's something I've been struggling with. For years I was under this belief that your point guard shouldn't be a scorer, but should just be someone who gets a lot of assists. This just made sense with conventional basketball logic. WHat's interesting, though... is that you have to go all the way back to Isiah Thomas and the Bad Boy Pistons to find a team that won a championship with a point guard who averaged over 8 assists... and in that instance, Isiah was also the team's best offensive weapon. Are we really sure that this conventional wisdom is still relevant? What evidence do we have that a team needs a ball-dominating poor-offensive passer? This isn't football where you need a great passer to lead an offense. This is the NBA. In the NBA, big men and dominant scorers win championships. And at the moment, it actually seems like this league has evolved into a system where elite point-guard sized scorers (your IRvings, your Curry's, your Westbrooks, your ROse's, etc) are able to flourish due to rule changes. So it's possible for teams to exploit this by having elite scoring point guards. Right now... isn't the point guard skill of "passing" secondary to putting the ball in the hoop? It makes sense why ROndo is only 6th on that list... you'd take a scoring point guard with mediocre passing over a passing point guard with weak offensive skills. I'm starting to think that the idea of a "pure" point guard isn't really relevant anymore... in the same way that the definition of the center position has changed in today's NBA.

Wait, first the knock on Rondo was that he can't lead your team to a championship because past evidence has shown that PG's don't win you titles. Now the logic is, we don't need Rondo because scoring PG's are more important in the NBA right now.

And suddenly having a PG who can score but has mediocre point guard skills is better than one who has elite skills but can't score (which BTW, isn't true for Rondo). That's absurd.

It's also highly unlikely that a guy like Curry, Irving, or even Rose will lead their team to a title any faster than Rondo will.

So then the obvious consensus is that we are perfectly fine with a defensive roleplayer like Bradley slotted in as permanent starting point guard... and then cash in Rondo to the highest bidder. Bradley will slow down these elite scoring point guard pests... and there's no reason we need an elite passer. Our chips are best spent on more important attributes like scoring, rebounding and interior defense.

But as pointed out by yourself numerous times before, Rondo has "little to no trade value", so what exactly are you hoping to cash in on? Why give away an elite talent like Rondo just so you can slot in a defensive role player at the PG position?

I just don't get how you can have the league leader for Assists that high (or low, either way you say it) if we are ranking the PG position.

Oh well though.

Poor FG shooter,, shaq-like FT shooter. He's a liability in the 4th, where the others are assets.

Rondo Career fg%: 48%

Chris Paul: 47%

Westbrook: 43%

Kyrie Irving: 475

Rose: 46%

Tony Parker : 49%

Seems like his FG% is on par with these guys.

Lol, now this is hilarious to me. We all know rondo is not a better shooter than most of the guys on that list. Most of the shots he hits he hits because the defense doesn't respect his shot and hes wide open.

Hes getting better no doubt but if anybody tries to tell me rondo is a better shooter than chris paul or kyrie, don't take it the wrong way if I laugh hysterically in your face.

All validity goes out the window when someone calls Russell Westbrook a better POINT GUARD than Rondo.

Seriously, by any measure of a point guard, Rondo is clearly superior. He even scores more efficiently.

who is a better basketball player?

Ahhhh this guy.

I like Rondo better, personally, but I recognize that that is not the conventional wisdom, so if this list were "top 10 players that play point guard" I would not have commented.

That seems like a heck of a silly thing to say, but I believe that PG's who pass well are better than PG's who score well (just as I feel the opposite is true of SG's(though, as stated later in this thread, having both is obviously the most prime choice)). I feel the Thunder, in particular, would have been WAY better had they kept and paid harden, and moved Westbrook for a more traditional point and picks or such.

I know you think Rondo is massively overate around here, and while as a C fan I do not get how you think that, I can respect it.

This season, Chris Paul and Kyrie Irving have shown me that they are better than Rondo (or in the case of Kyrie, will be in very short order, if not now). Tony Parker is very crafty, and due to his lengthy experience, could be argued is a better PG this season, but I think Rondo at that point in his career would be easily better than Parker. I think Derrick Rose and Westbrook are HUGELY overrated, and would take Rondo over either of them every time.

I feel that Rondo has that "it", that you don't think he has. I think Rondo can be the #1 player on a championship team. I do not feel that way about Russell Westbrook.

EDIT: Just to be clear, I was speaking to the writer of the article. I didn't mean to imply the same for posters in this thread, even if it seemed like it!

All validity goes out the window when someone calls Russell Westbrook a better POINT GUARD than Rondo.

Seriously, by any measure of a point guard, Rondo is clearly superior. He even scores more efficiently.

They both play the 1, and he thinks that Westbrook is better than Rondo. Seems simple to me. We can disagree and believe that Rondo is better than Westbrook, but the reality remains -- they both play PG.

You are right, and I should have included an IMO in there, because it is just that.

All validity goes out the window when someone calls Russell Westbrook a better POINT GUARD than Rondo.

Seriously, by any measure of a point guard, Rondo is clearly superior. He even scores more efficiently.

who is a better basketball player?

Ahhhh this guy.

I like Rondo better, personally, but I recognize that that is not the conventional wisdom, so if this list were "top 10 players that play point guard" I would not have commented.

A point guard is someone who plays point guard. To me, the differentiation you are making seems to me like just a way to exalt Rondo over other guys who play his position. Find what Rondo does well and make that the significant characteristic.

All validity goes out the window when someone calls Russell Westbrook a better POINT GUARD than Rondo.

Seriously, by any measure of a point guard, Rondo is clearly superior. He even scores more efficiently.

who is a better basketball player?

Ahhhh this guy.

I like Rondo better, personally, but I recognize that that is not the conventional wisdom, so if this list were "top 10 players that play point guard" I would not have commented.

A point guard is someone who plays point guard. To me, the differentiation you are making seems to me like just a way to exalt Rondo over other guys who play his position. Find what Rondo does well and make that the significant characteristic.

I am very big on roles. I like a traditional point, and thus value them much more, than points like AI and Rose. I understand that most people do not, and value scoring as the #1 attribute. I disagree.

I feel Rondo has "it", that point guard sense of feeding the right guys at the right time, that really can get a team red hot.

I do not think Russell Westbrook is a good point guard, but I think he is a good player. I do not think that the skill he is best at, are the most useful skills for a point guard to have. I think heavy scoring point guards ruin the flow of a teams offense, and thus are not as "good" when one considers them in the whole of the offense, and not just looking at their numbers in a vacuum.

So, I think Westbrook would beat Rondo in a game of one on one, thus earning him the better player title, but in a game of five on five, I think Rondo is the better play to put at the one spot.

You can say that you think Rondo is the best. But if you wouldn't trade Rondo for Irving or CP3 you're crazy.

hah, and i think youre crazy for the opposite.

Yall say the same thing every regular season and then when the playoffs come around, hes everybody's favorite. Broken records. Hes gonna be sitting pretty when he hoists that Larry Obrien in the coming years.

You can say that you think Rondo is the best. But if you wouldn't trade Rondo for Irving or CP3 you're crazy.

hah, and i think youre crazy for the opposite.

Yall say the same thing every regular season and then when the playoffs come around, hes everybody's favorite. Broken records. Hes gonna be sitting pretty when he hoists that Larry Obrien in the coming years.

I gotta say I hear you...

He can't score...well, where did those 44 come from? We weren't going to take that series past the sixers without him, let alone take the heat to seven.